eMSQOL-29: Prospective validation of the abbreviated,electronic version of MSQOL-54

Abstract

Background:

We recently devised a shortened version of the 54-item Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life (MSQOL-54) in paper (MSQOL-29, consisting of 25 items forming 7 subscales and 4 single items, and one filter question for 3 ‘sexual function’ items) and electronic format (eMSQOL-29).

Objectives:

To prospectively assess eMSQOL-29 psychometric properties, acceptability/equivalence versus MSQOL-29.

Methods:

Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients (n = 623; Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) range 0.0–9.0) completed eMSQOL-29, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Functional Assessment of MS (FAMS), European Quality of life Five Dimensions-3L, and received EDSS and Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Equivalence versus MSQOL-29 was assessed in 242 patients (randomized cross-over design).

Results:

‘Sexual function’ items were filtered out by 273 patients (47%). No multi-item scale had floor effect, while five had ceiling effect. Cronbach’s alpha range was 0.88–0.90. Confirmatory factor analysis showed good overall fit and the two-factor solution for composite scores was confirmed. Criterion validity was sub-optimal for ‘cognitive function’ (vs SDMT, r = 0.25) and ‘social function’ (vs FAMS social function, r = 0.38). eMSQOL-29 equivalence was confirmed and its acceptability was good.

Conclusion:

eMSQOL-29 showed good internal consistency, factor structure and no floor effect, while most subscales had some ceiling effect. Criterion validity was sub-optimal for two subscales. Equivalence and acceptability were good.

Keywords

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Rothwell

McDowell

Wong

et al . Doctors and patients don’t agree: Cross sectional study of patients’ and doctors’ perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1997; 314: 1580–1583.

Solari

Role of health-related quality of life measures in the routine care of people with multiple sclerosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005; 3: 16.

Khurana

Sharma

Afroz

et al . Patient-reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis: A systematic comparison of available measures. Eur J Neurol 2017; 24: 1099–1107.

Skevington

Lotfy

O’Connell

KA.

The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL Group. Qual Life Res 2004; 13: 299–310.

Sloan

Aaronson

Cappelleri

et al . Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 479–487.

Gold

Heesen

Schulz

et al . Disease specific quality of life instruments in multiple sclerosis: Validation of the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS). Mult Scler 2001; 7: 119–130.

Ford

Gerry

Tennant

et al . Developing a disease-specific quality of life measure for people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 247–258.

Marrie

Miller

Chelune

et al . Validity and reliability of the MSQLI in cognitively impaired patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2003; 9: 621–626.

Simeoni

Auquier

Fernandez

et al . Validation of the Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life Questionnaire. Mult Scler 2008; 14: 219–230.

10.

Vickrey

Hays

Harooni

et al . A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 187–206.

11.

Rosato

Testa

Bertolotto

et al . Development of a short version of MSQOL-54 using factor analysis and item response theory. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: e0153466.

12.

Hays

Stewart

The structure of self-reported health in chronic disease patients. Psychol Assessment 1990; 2: 22–30.

13.

Solari

Filippini

Mendozzi

et al . Validation of Italian Multiple Sclerosis Quality Of Life 54 Questionnaire. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 67: 158–162.

14.

Coons

Gwaltney

Hays

et al . Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2009; 12: 419–429.

15.

Muehlhausen

Doll

Quadri

et al . Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015; 13: 167.

16.

Eremenco

Coons

Paty

et al . PRO data collection in clinical trials using mixed modes: Report of the ISPOR PRO mixed modes good research practices task force. Value Health 2014; 17: 501–516.

17.

Polman

Reingold

Banwell

et al . Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011; 69: 292–302.

18.

Cella

Dineen

Arnason

et al . Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology 1996; 47: 129–139.

19.

Johnson

Coons

Ergo

et al . Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 421–433.

20.

König

Bernert

Angermeyer

et al . Comparison of population health status in six European countries: Results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Med Care 2009; 47: 255–261.

21.

Zigmond

Snaith

RP.

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67: 361–370.

22.

Costantini

Musso

Viterbori

et al . Detecting psychological distress in cancer patients: Validity of the Italian version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Support Care Cancer 1999; 7: 121–127.

23.

Provinciali

Ceravolo

Bartolini

et al . A multidimensional assessment of multiple sclerosis: Relationships between disability domains. Acta Neurol Scand 1999; 100: 156–162.

24.

Kurtzke

JF.

Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444–1452.

25.

Drake

Weinstock-Guttman

Morrow

et al . Psychometris and normative data for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: Replacing the PASAT with the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Mult Scler 2010; 16: 228–237.

26.

Shrout

Fleiss

JL.

Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–428.

27.

Walter

Eliasziw

Donner

Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 1998; 17: 101–110.

28.

Kadel

Kip

KE.

A SAS macro to compute effect size (Cohen’s) and its confidence interval from raw survey data. In: Proceedings of the annual SouthEast SAS Users Group conference, http://analytics.ncsu.edu/sesug/2012/SD-06.pdf (2012, accessed 15 March 2018).

29.

Ware

Snow

Kosinski

et al . SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1993.

30.

Spilker

Revicki

. Taxonomy of quality of life. In: Spilker

(ed.) Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996, pp. 25–31.

31.

Mitchell

Benito-Leon

Gonzalez

et al . Quality of life and its assessment in multiple sclerosis: Integrating physical and psychological components of wellbeing. Lancet Neurol 2005; 4: 556–566.

32.

Moore

Vickrey

Fortin

et al . Two multiple sclerosis quality-of-life measures: Comparison in a national sample. Can J Neurol Sci 2015; 42: 55–63.

33.

Foley

Zemon

Campagnolo

et al . The Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire – Re-validation and development of a 15-item version with a large US sample. Mult Scler 2013; 19: 1197–1203.

34.

Middleton

Denney

Lynch

et al . The relationship between perceived and objective cognitive functioning in multiple sclerosis. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2006; 21: 487–494.

35.

Gold

Schulz

Monch

et al . Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis does not affect reliability and validity of self-report health measures. Mult Scler 2003; 9: 404–410.

36.

Bennett

Dueck

Mitchell

et al . Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016; 14: 24.

37.

Guyatt

Osoba

et al . Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 371–383.

38.

Schwartz

Sprangers

MA.

Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1531–1548.

39.

Lavallee

Chenok

Love

et al . Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Affairs 2016; 35: 575–582.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.31 MB

0.30 MB

0.31 MB